New Jersey lawmakers vote to abolish death penalty »
Posted By david_nwpa 1 year, 10 months ago in NewsNew Jersey lawmakers have voted to abolish the death penalty in the state, sending the governor a bill he has already said he will sign. The measure will make New Jersey the first state in more than 40 years to outlaw capital punishment.
Read Full Story at cnn.com »
574 Views Share Story 47 Comments Report
Submitted By:
david_nwpa
Hello folks,
Welcome to my little corner of Propeller. I am also available as davidnwpa09 on Twitter.com. I have many followers on Propeller whom ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 220 of 225 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Governor Corzine will abolish the death penalty with the swipe of a pen. He will save lives of those convicted and sentenced to be executed. One would presume that as a result of the change in the law, those on death row will automatically have their sentences commuted.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
blinkers1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks David, for this story.
The only way I can relate to it is through personal feelings (thank goodness you're not a lawmaker, I hear you cry!)
If someone kidnapped and murdered one (or more) of my children, I know that I could never rest until I knew the killer had been brought to justice. And by justice I mean execution.
All the rest is open for discussion, but an absolute and total abolition of the death penalty, I could never support.
Reply-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive
-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive
-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I probably would feel the same, and that's why I'm grateful that it's the justice system that would decide what to do and not I. Murder is an abomination, no matter who does it, whether it's the murderer, the victim's family or the state.
Many years ago, I did some research on the "benefits" of capital punishment. In a nutshell, other than the bitter-sweet taste of vengeance, it had none. Things may have changed since then, but I doubt it.
Most people feel that preventing further murders is worth executing people, but what I found at the time was that the vast majority of murderers never kill again, but a fair number of armed robbers and even thieves do.
The biggest problem is that even though criminal cases are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't be absolutely certain that you have the right person. The execution of how many innocents is acceptable to get the guilty ones?
Reply -
-
Neutral
jaern1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with part of your statement:
If someone kidnapped and murdered one (or more) of my children, I know that I could never rest until I knew the killer had been brought to justice.
But I do not agree that their death would bring justice. I'm all for keeping these people away from the rest of society but their death has never brought back a single victim. And what about the wrongly convicted sentenced to death? We have seen sentences overturned with the advancement of technology. How would you feel seeing the justice of your murdered child handed down to the wrong person? Would this not compound your own grief and guilt?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
panzerv1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WOW! Thats AWSOME! I so look forward to supporting convicted murderers for the rest of their lives in prison. I had nothing better to do with the money I have extorted from me in the form of taxes. What a worthy cause! Let's by all means keep those worthless a%@holes in a nice, dry, warm place, making sure they get three dietician designed meals a day, with cable, internet, lets not forget exercise. Have I left anything out? Oh...sex of course, and drugs, and medical care, and everything else WE have to pay for.
God forbid their human rights should be violated. When did prison go from a place you didn't want to be, to a place you did want to be? It's real punishment getting all those perks for free. Zietgeist the movie on youtube. Worth the price of the popcorn!
Reply-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well you should be happy then. At the cost of the special facilities, extra security, legal expenses to the state of required appeals, and the long time before a condemned can be executed the costs of capital punishment are astronomical.
For what it costs to keep an inmate on death row for a year you can incarerate dozens or non death row inmates. If you are into the financial costs you should oppose capital punishment more than those morally opposed since the costs are so excessive.
Why are the costs so high you might ask. Well since the punishment is so permanent and cannot be reversed if someone is later found not guilty we spend great sums of money in the persuit of ensuring the correctness of the verict.
Life without parole and you don't need to do that since if something proves lack of guilt you simply release them from prison, but you can never undo capital punishment.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A happy day for New Jersey and the rest of us.
It's often difficult for people to see that the state shouldn't be in the business of killing--to do so puts it on the same level as those who murder. Once a life has been taken, taking another doesn't right the initial wrong.
Life in prison is a worse punishment than execution, in my opinion, and should satisfy the need for justice.
Reply-
Neutral
blinkers1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poulenc, to a certain extent, I agree that "life in prison is a worse punishment.....etc." but with with an ever-changing justice system, as necessarily exists in a representative democracy, the heinous killer given a life sentence can always nurse the hope that one day, maybe one day.....there'll be a parole, a pardon, a retrial, whatever, and ultimately freedom.
The very worst killers do not deserve that hope. (My opinion).
Reply -
Neutral
Redneck1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No! The state should be in the "business of executing killers". The state is US and therefore you are saying the society should not be in the business of meting out justice. It is not "punishment". It is justice. If you hold my life of no value to the point that you attempt to take or take, it then your life as no value either. That is justice. Breach the rights of others then your rights are forfeit.
A society which does not set high value on life has set a low value on its members. This sends the wrong signal. The commission looked into whether the death penalty prevents violent crime. That is the wrong question. The question is "do we value human life?" OR "What do we say as a society to those who consider taking the life of others?"
It seems some states value animals more that humans. But hey maybe that is what they are saying in NJ. "WE are all animals so what does it matter if one animal kills another animal?"
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't personally see the benefit to keeping someone alive in prison for a lifetime. If a person is THAT flawed that they think it's OK to just go and kill someone, why keep them alive? they are NOT going to "get better" - ever. And if they are in for life, what difference if they do? The only thing that MUST be in place is an absolute CERTAINTY of guilt. And I DO NOT mean just a conviction. Absolute, incontrovertible physical evidence. Here in Illinois, we seem to have a bad habit of sending guys to death row, and then having to turn them loose later when DNA came along and PROVED - conclusively - that they really were NOT guilty of the crime they were convicted of. Let's face it, people on a jury are well short of infallible. There need to be guidelines for putting someone to death, and they need to be very carefully thought out and followed.
Reply-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The first and most basic flaw of our system is simply that no matter what you indicate you still need to be poor and minority in the vast majority of cases to receive the death penalty.
I might be willing to support that penalty if we could remove the prejudice from the justice system and provide truly proper quality defence to those without the funds, such as OJ, to provide for themselves.
When 95% of death row inmates are both poor and minority that says something wrong about our system. Proportionally to population whites murder just as much but rarely if ever receive a death penalty. Fix those errors and problem and then we can talk about the value or use of capital punishment. Until then it is nothing more than another form of discriminatory lynchings that occured a hundred years ago.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
oneironaut4201 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Murder is murder, whether it's committed by a citizen or the state...it's like when I was a kid, and my parents told me that because I was the oldest, I had to be the mature one. The government has to be "mature" and not resort to the same level of violence committed by these criminals.
The death penalty only keeps the circle of violence spinning out of control.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Joe, people are endlessly fallible (have you noticed?) a fact multiplied a zillion times by bureaucracy.
You seem in favor of the death penalty in certain situations, after the application of stringent tests; I take your point, but the issue is ultimately a moral one.
The question is, does an individual's (or even a group's) need for eye-for-an-eye vengeance trump the need (or wish) for the state's hands to remain unbloodied.
I say no.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
BronxBomber1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LMAO! Good one Alfalfa, =oD
I suppose that these killers will get all the perks huh? Cable TV,phone calls,computer acess, and especially those conjugal visits that the killer's victim's are unfortunately deprived of in the comforts of life due to being permanantly terminated by the lifers there in Joisey.
Somehow, things just don't seem to balance right IMO.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jumpmaster1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The death penalty only keeps the circle of violence spinning out of control"
That isn't the only thing it does.
It also removes a defect from the gene pool.
It also gives closure to the victims' families.
It also serves as a deterrance. Even if it is only one deterrance, it would be worth it.
Reply-
Neutral
oneironaut4201 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It also removes a defect from the gene pool."
There is no evidence that genes are responsible for causing people to commit murder.
"It also gives closure to the victims' families."
Forgiveness is a powerful form of closure, one that doesn't give the government the right to kill it's own citizens.
"It also serves as a deterrance."
There is no evidence that the death penalty has lowered the number of violent crimes.
"Even if it is only one deterrance, it would be worth it."
Considering that there HAVE been innocent people put to death, and considering that neither you or I can imagine the utter horror of being murdered by the government for a crime you didn't commit, then if stopping the death penalty saves even one innocent life, it would be worth it. 8)
Reply -
Neutral
afoaf1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I tend to agree with points 1 & 2, but your third point is false.
It's been proven in many different regards that the death penalty is not a useful deterrent.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?sci...
furthermore, it's far more expensive to kill them than it is to just let them rot in prison.
Reply -
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are defective if you decide to do this yourself, but you are not if you can decide to do so as part of a COMMITTEE? I see.....
It gives closure to victim's families. Barbarous. Everyone dies. It takes the death of another to bring closure when one of your family dies? How do the families of victims of hurricanes or car accidents or cancer get closure? Maybe we need to do human sacrifice at the graveside?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
good for new jersey.
we're the only western, industrialized country that still practices the death penalty and its about time we grow up.
unless the family of the victim has very strong feelings about execution, we should let these people rot in a cell for fifty years, then they'll go to hell after they die old and broken. thats a much better punishment in my book. and if there is no hell, we're letting them off the hook by not making them stay for fifty years in the hell on earth called prison.
also, as much as you'd all like to believe, the death penalty is not a deterrent. just look at the murder rates in the US vs. other wetern countries. a good economy is a better deterrent thatn the death penalty. crime rates go down when the economy is booming.
Reply -
-
Neutral
afoaf1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you punish the taxpayer by executing them.
it's consistently more expensive to execute someone than to lock them up for life.
if you're really worried about the bottom line, you'd be cheering Jersey.
In fact NJ itself commissioned a study that in 2005 found that the death penalty was costing considerably more than life without parole (LWOP) when you factor in the long (and necessary) appeals process that must be exhausted before a person is executed.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Red, no one is suggesting that justice should not be meted out to those who commit a crime; the question is, what kind of justice?
The state isn't JUST us; it's meant to represent a consensus based on principle, which is to say, morality.
You and I just can't kill someone because they've killed someone else, even though they have, in your words, breached the rights of others; and neither can--or better, SHOULD--the state.
The state must stand for more than the individuals who constitute it; therefore, it shouldn't respond to murder, which is immoral, with murder.
Reply-
Neutral
Redneck1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Justice is not "punishment." By definition murder is to take the life of another outside of law. "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought." You have set a code for society by defining murder as immoral. It breaks a moral code you hold and apparently feel the society must hold. But you extend that definition to all of society. If it is immoral for the society to take a life then it is immoral to lock up a thief and deprive him of a opportunity to earn a living!
The state executes murderers. The law provides justice: death. The sense of justice in our society seems to be "a system of consequences which naturally derives from any action or choice" which we have codified into law. In other words: "void the rights of others lose your rights" which means deprive another of life results in you losing your life; stealing: the lost of personal time which equates to money and/or retribution of goods; etc.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 10 months ago
-
Neutral
jumpmaster1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How is that punishing the taxpayer? If their state abolishes the death penalty then those taxpayers have agreed to pay to house, feed, and educate killers of productive members of society. I support the wishes of the voters.
For states that do have the death penalty, then swift execution of sentence also complies with the wishes of the voters.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jumpmaster1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would support housing all death row inmates in lieu of execution if all prisons adopted Sherrif Joe's approach to running a jail.
See attached. Sherrif Joe has gotten it right.
http://no1sicko.com/arpaio.htm
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
NelsonR1 year, 10 months ago
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NelsonR: "I sincerely hope and pray that the elected representatives that voted against the death penaly have themselves or their family member killed, slaughtered and abused by a felon."
So you wish death on an innocent person because one of his/her family member refused others the right to murder. Pray tell me how you are different from a murderer.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
oneironaut4201 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I sincerely hope and pray that the elected representatives that voted against the death penaly have themselves or their family member killed, slaughtered and abused by a felon. Paybacks a B^^ch!!"
What an ugly thing to say about people who did nothing to you, except happen to have a family member who is in politics and has different views from yours. Some of their family members are probably children...what a sad, hateful person to actually pray for an innocent child to suffer a horrible death. 8(
I sincerely hope, for the sake of your family members, that karma is not the same b^^tch that you claim payback is.
Reply-
Neutral
NelsonR1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes oneiron, it is a cruel thing to say BUT if you, as an elected official refuse to take into consideration both repetitive criminals and consequences you leave open the possibility that one of your own family members could suffer. Repeating, they would have brought it upon themselves if an abominable act occurs to one of their own. They made that decision I didn't. Why should a family suffer who had no decision in the matter of a satanic criminal. I stand firm in my conviction. You stay the goodie goodie person you think you are and just maybe you also will learn in time your opinion is wrong.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
OldHickory1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am ambivalent about the death penalty as long as the guilty party is punished, whether it be by death or life in prison. The only fear I have about abolishing the death penalty and resentencing those animals to life in prison is that in the future some bleeding heart legislature, governor, president or supreme court may come up with a way to further reduce their sentences so that they become eligible for parole. And I don't care to hear about how they were unfairly convicted and their other sob stories. If they weren't guilty of the crime(s) for which they were sentenced then most of them certainly were guilty of other crimes they got away with. I wonder if that ever crossed the governor's mind?
Reply-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm! If you take into account all the gross misdemeanors and felonies on the books: tax evasion, embezzlement, drunk driving, illegal drug use, false testimony under oath, etc. etc and so forth, I'll bet you could lock up adults at random and have a better than 50-50 chance of not being unjust. Of course most of us don't remember the crimes we've committed ourselves and gotten away with. We operate on the theory that if we weren't caught, it never happened.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
do you really think the death sentence ever deterred anyone from killing? do you really think life without parole ever deterred anyone. Personally I doubt it.
The death penalty is a costly & flawed process - life without parole is not t he worst punishment- some of those so sentenced fit into the prison systyem very well because their inability to accept the responsibilty of living free in society is served.
however, life without parole removes them from our midst & their threat of violence is nullified.
The death penalty should & must be used against terrorists, they are fanatics whoose only punishment should be death.
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The most effective defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrified. Is killing a random stranger any worse than killing your father or your daughter or your girlfriend? You think you are killing terrorists for a valid reason; they think they are blowing up the train for valid reasons. What makes YOU the correct one? I say no death penalty for anyone but horse thieves and cattle rustlers.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find it interesting that some many people wish the U.S. to mimic China on this issue. The use of the death penalty in China dwarfs its use in the U.S. Personally I think that there are better ways to reduce the murder rate in the U.S. than the death penalty. If I'm right, than the death penalty is a waste of resources.
I have also heard that in the 18th century, when convicted pickpockets were put to death in front of the public, that pickpockets usually circulated through the gathered crowds picking pockets.
Those who want to speed up the process thinking that this will help make the death penalty more of a deterrent, consider this: Several people on death row were proven innocent of the crime within days before they were to be executed. Do you really want the execution of innocent people on your conscience?
Reply -
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it matters not whether it is a deterrent or the cost. western society is based on the Social Contract. especial America whose founders were so entrenched in enlightenment philosophy. The short version of the social contract is "we will agree to live together for a common good, respecting each others' rights, contributing to the common needs, and obeying the agreed upon rules which are based upon common mores. When members of the group break this contract they will be punished by the group."
We have stated that it is a grievous violation of the common mores to kill another human. So if we punish this violation by killing the offender, does this contradiction not rob the group of the moral integrity required to enforce its own edicts? why should a member of the group respect rules that apparently the group as a whole doesn't respect?
Reply -
-
Neutral
EsaEngr1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh how I long for the good OLD days when America had it right!
Kill someone, get arrested, wait for the Judge to get into town (with a cot and 3 hots a day), trial the next day... verdict in the morning (if that long), public hanging the next morning!
Without putting to death a KILLER, we have no deterent!
Reply -
-
Neutral
EsaEngr1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh how I long for the good OLD days when America had it right!
Kill someone, get arrested, wait for the Judge to get into town (with a cot and 3 hots a day), trial the next day... verdict in the morning (if that long), public hanging the next morning!
Without putting to death a KILLER, we have no deterent!
Reply -
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nelson, above, above: your combi-platter of anger, self-righteousness and just plain meanness is loathsome.
Do you wish the death of all those who disagree with you? You don't buttress your argument, whatever it might be, by doing so; you just forfeit credibility.
Reply -
Neutral
slate1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The people that seem to always be the least talked about during this type of debate are the victims and the families of the victims. I have know a few people that have had their lives taken from them by criminals and every family wants those that took their loved ones from them to pay the same price that was given to their murdered family member.
Yes we need to make very certain that someone committed the crime before we execute them, that's why it takes 10 or more years to go through that process. Until you live through the pain of having a loved one murdered it would be difficult to understand.
The young man and woman that murdered their little girl here in Houston has been on the news, and from what I remember from the thread here about it, many called for their execution and far worse.
Remember, those that would be kind to the cruel will most likely have no problem being cruel to the kind.
Reply-
Neutral
slate1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now with that said,,,,
For those that don't want the murders executed, how about we banish them to a remote part of Alaska to spend their life without the possibility of parole and at hard labor. IF that sort of thing were to happen, then murders may think twice. Hard knocks need to be handed to those that have so little value for life. Isolation, hard labor, harsh conditions, no weight rooms, little TV time. Only when we make the punishment abhorrent enough that fewer criminals take others lives on a whim, will the problem ever be solved.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
its a justice system not a vengeance system, this is the reason you are tried by a jury of peer and not by the victims.
the fact that our system is currently rife with corruption is not justification for government sanctioned murder.
for centuries people have been put to death for all sorts of crimes, all of those crimes continue, the argument for deterrence is false.
punishment of any type doesnt not offer deterrence to the next criminal. what it offers is the removal of the criminal from society. for heinous crimes like murder, there should be a permanent removal, not by commiting murder on the criminal because that contradicts the argument that murder is wrong, but by imprisonment (or exile as slate suggests). this may cost us money but it does allow us to retain the moral integrity of our culture without which we are simply barbarians.
Reply -
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In effective NJ abolished the death penalty years ago
Time: NJ reinstated the death penalty in 1982, six years after the Supreme Court allowed states to resume executions, but nobody has been executed in NJ since 1963.
Seems like the legislature is out of step with the residents in the state: Dec 12, 2007 story
Quinnipiac University polled the public
Democrats - get rid of the death penalty by a margin of 50 to 43%
Republicans - keep it by a margin of 65 to 26%.
Independent voters- oppose the death penalty by a margin of 54 to 38%.
Flipping the results around, the Democrats prefer the life sentence over the death penalty by a margin of 65 to 27% and the Republicans prefer the death penalty by a margin of 52 to 38%. And with the independents, life without parole wins by a vote of 49 to 40%.
But the voters are more in agreement when it comes to the most violent of criminals, with 78% saying the death penalty should be kept for the likes of serial killers and child killers.
Reply -
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fine. If you are willing to take the consequences, go ahead and kill the one who kills someone in your family. Does this include the state executioner, should one of your family be sentenced to death? If your older son kills your younger one, are you gonna kill your older son? If you want to see the ludicrous one here, I'm sure you own a mirror.
It is plainly demonstrated that the death penalty in America is prejudicially applied to the poor, to males, and to racial/ethnic minorities. It is also demonstrated that it has been sentenced and carried out against the innocent. It is not equal and not just; therefore its administration cannot be trusted, and must cease.
Reply -
Neutral
haydenmacdonald1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have a great day! http://sitezanka.rchival.info/sitemap.html
Reply -
Neutral
stevendalton1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I Did't sea Turkish Font. http://bestroyalties.info/sitemap.html
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
NelsonR1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poulenc - Poppycock. I do not know who Jumpmaster was referring his comment to but I think you, hope. Same question, have you had any close relative slaughtered, killed or abused by a felon? I think your opinion is based on non experience.
If you are a bible thumper, eye for an eye if that comment needs to rethink your position. Myself I would throw the switch without any guilt associated with his/her death for righteous retribution. No wonder we have felons all over, the do gooders abound.
Reply-
Neutral
oneironaut4201 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Same question, have you had any close relative slaughtered, killed or abused by a felon? I think your opinion is based on non experience."
I have experience, and I still do not support the death penalty. It is simply a perpetuation of violence.
"If you are a bible thumper, eye for an eye if that comment needs to rethink your position."
I made the comment; I am not a Christian, and I believe "an eye for an eye" creates an impression that revenge is necessary in order to achieve justice. It is not.
"No wonder we have felons all over, the do gooders abound."
Not true. As previously stated by other posters but ignored by the pro-death crowd, there is no evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime. Felons are often created by poor economic conditions. Simply killing them is like putting a band-aid on a sword wound - it does not address the problem of WHY we have such a high rate of violent crime.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.